🚨 BREAKING: Judge Dismisses Michael Wolff’s Preemptive Lawsuit Against Melania Trump
A federal judge has thrown out author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against first lady Melania Trump, refusing to decide in advance whether his public comments about her and Jeffrey Epstein were defamatory or protected speech. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York issued a 45-page opinion on May 22 dismissing the case on prudential grounds. The clerk entered judgment for Trump on May 26. The ruling does not find Wolff’s statements false, and it does not find them shielded by the First Amendment. It holds only that Wolff cannot use a preemptive federal action to lock in a victory before a conventional defamation case is filed and tried.
“The plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the first lady sues him, he deserves to win,” Vyskocil wrote. “That is not how the federal courts work.” She said the parties “have a real dispute” but “must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else.” The judge described Wolff’s approach as carrying an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” and said the court “will not be conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat.”
The fight began after Wolff made public remarks linking Melania Trump to Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Counsel for the first lady, Alejandro Brito, demanded a retraction and apology, saying the comments caused “overwhelming reputational and financial harm” and that she would be “left with no alternative” but to sue if Wolff refused. The threatened claim was framed as seeking as much as $1 billion in damages.
Wolff’s Legal Strategy
Instead of retracting, Wolff sued first in New York state court, seeking a declaration that his statements were lawful and invoking anti-SLAPP protections meant to deter intimidation suits against public speech. Trump’s lawyers removed the case to federal court in late December 2025. The docket is Wolff v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10752. Vyskocil found diversity jurisdiction: the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the federal threshold. She then declined to exercise that jurisdiction.
Under the Supreme Court’s Wilton/Brillhart doctrine, federal courts may abstain from declaratory-judgment actions when a related dispute can proceed in the ordinary course. The judge concluded Wolff was trying to short-circuit that process-winning the “race to the courthouse” in New York after Trump had already signaled a Florida defamation action. The dismissal therefore leaves the core questions untouched.
Nothing in the opinion establishes that Wolff defamed the first lady. Nothing establishes that the statements were constitutionally protected. Any future defamation case would be decided under the usual burden of proof, including the heightened “actual malice” standard that applies when a public figure sues over speech on a matter of public concern.
Appeal and Ongoing Proceedings
Wolff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, docketed as No. 26-1674. His opening brief is due Oct. 1, 2026. Sanctions practice continued in the district court after judgment, but those proceedings do not alter the May ruling’s central holding: the federal court would not preview the merits of a speech dispute that had not yet been properly joined.
The case sits inside a larger public fight over Epstein-related statements involving the Trump family. Both sides have staked out irreconcilable positions on what was said and whether it crossed the line from commentary into actionable falsehood. For now, the federal decision is procedural, not a verdict on the underlying allegations. Any later lawsuit will have to be filed, served, and litigated under the rules that apply to everyone else.